Posted by burnsy483 on 12/10/2013 7:31:00 AM (view original):I don't care much if a player leads the league in RBI. Mays did lead the league in OPS+ 6 times, and added a ton of value with his legs and defense. He also has the counting stats to be HOF-worthy than Halladay does not have.

If you want me to vote for a player for the HOF, and you don't have the counting numbers to do it, I want you to have a dominant peak, to be considered by many to be the best for multiple years. I don't think it's obvious Halladay was the best for more than a few years. Although, he did lead in ERA+ once, which is probably a better stat than ERA. So I'll give you that stat. But yea, be dominant if you have a shorter career. Be Pedro. Be Koufax.

"I want you to have a dominant peak, to be considered by many to be the best for multiple years. I don't think it's obvious Halladay was the best for more than a few years."

Over a nine season span (2003 - 2011), Halliday went 151-68 (average of 17-8), with three 20 win seasons, a 2.97 ERA, and a 147+ ERA plus. He also led or tied for the league lead in complete games in 7 of those 9 seasons, and finished in the top five of Cy Young Award voting 7 out of those 9 seasons (winning twice).

How does that not fit your "requirement"?

No. Be dominant, be better than everyone else, not "as good" as the best guys.

Be Koufax. Be Pedro. Or, pitch for longer.

He won two CYA's.

Is that not "better"?

There are other guys who won 2 Cy Youngs who don't have the career for the HOF. McClain, Saberhagen, Lincecum and Johan more recently. Doesn't make them HOFers.

Tom Glavine will make the HOF because he won 300 games. He had a great peak, and was very good for a long time, and he'll get rewarded for having both of those. If he retired after age 35 like Halladay, he would have the following stats:

222-128, 3.36 ERA, 123 ERA+, 1.28 WHIP, 2 Cy Youngs

It's not a HOF career, despite the 2 Cy Young awards, and despite being considered one of the best in the game during his prime. He was overshadowed by a HOFer on his own team, and the argument could be made that he was 3rd best for a time. He was never dominant relative to his peers in MLB. Now, obviously Halladay was better than Glavine in their primes. But the point stands, I don't think he was good enough during his prime to make up for the lack of "counting stats." I think he's close. IMO, he needed 2-3 more "very good" years.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/10/2013 7:31:00 AM (view original):I don't care much if a player leads the league in RBI. Mays did lead the league in OPS+ 6 times, and added a ton of value with his legs and defense. He also has the counting stats to be HOF-worthy than Halladay does not have.

If you want me to vote for a player for the HOF, and you don't have the counting numbers to do it, I want you to have a dominant peak, to be considered by many to be the best for multiple years. I don't think it's obvious Halladay was the best for more than a few years. Although, he did lead in ERA+ once, which is probably a better stat than ERA. So I'll give you that stat. But yea, be dominant if you have a shorter career. Be Pedro. Be Koufax.

"I want you to have a dominant peak, to be considered by many to be the best for multiple years. I don't think it's obvious Halladay was the best for more than a few years."

Over a nine season span (2003 - 2011), Halliday went 151-68 (average of 17-8), with three 20 win seasons, a 2.97 ERA, and a 147+ ERA plus. He also led or tied for the league lead in complete games in 7 of those 9 seasons, and finished in the top five of Cy Young Award voting 7 out of those 9 seasons (winning twice).

How does that not fit your "requirement"?

No. Be dominant, be better than everyone else, not "as good" as the best guys.

Be Koufax. Be Pedro. Or, pitch for longer.

He won two CYA's.

Is that not "better"?

Look at Halladay's 2003 and then look at Pedro's. Then tell me that giving the award to Halladay wasn't a mistake.

He was the best in the NL in 2010. But Hernandez was the best pitcher in baseball that year.

According to BL, aka jrd_x, "more is better".

Halladay pitched around 80 more innings than Pedro. Therefore . . .

But what about according to you?

Do you think Halladay should have gotten the Cy Young in 2003? Or should it have gone to Pedro?

Posted by Jtpsops on 12/10/2013 12:17:00 PM (view original):You clearly didn't watch Halladay pitch. Had he been in a bigger market, this wouldn't even be a discussion. He also pitched to game situation - he pitched to contact and risked giving up runs with big leads if it helped him get outs quicker. His numbers could be even better than they are.

He was an absolute stud and for a 6-7 year span (maybe more), there was NO other pitcher I would have wanted in a big game.

Of course I watched Halladay pitch.

If you're arguing his stats were a little worse because he pitched to the score, I could argue that if he didn't, and pitched as hard as others did, the value he has in innings pitched and complete games also takes a hit...and maybe he's done at 33 instead of 36. The way he pitched was the way he pitched, his stats are what they are. If he "pitched to the score" it's shown in innings pitched and win-loss record. And it's nice, but 203 wins doesn't scream HOFer.

Posted by chrisekeedei on 12/10/2013 1:55:00 PM (view original):You are all just making up your own standards for what constitutes a Hall of Famer. You're citing a certain number of innings, a certain number of wins, etc. with no evidence that your arbitrarily selected numbers or concepts have anything to do with what actually constitutes a Hall of Fame pitcher, which has already been established by the dozens already in.

This page does compare pitchers to the standards already set by existing Hall of Famers, and Halladay does well. He's surrounded by Juan Marichal, Bob Feller, Carl Hubbell, and Hal Newhouser -- not exactly the dregs of the Hall. I'm not saying this closes the case, but at least it's grounded in something concrete rather than whatever numbers sound good to you personally:

Trust me when I tell you that someone like tec gives zero ***** when it comes to that. The only reason he is saying yes is because I said no. He said so himself a few pages ago.

Based on JAWS, allowing Halladay into the Hall of Fame lowers the standard for Hall of Fame pitchers. Let him in and you also pave the way for Kevin Brown. Maybe even David Cone. And you absolutely have to let Schilling, Mussina, and Glavine in first.

And yea, for what's it's worth, I don't think most of the guys on that list below Halladay are HOF material. In my head, Schilling is right on the borderline, and gets in because of what he did in the postseason. And he's above Halladay on JAWS.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/10/2013 1:57:00 PM (view original):So I'm making up my own standards for what constitutes a HOFer, so you show a stat from a guy who set up his own standards for what constitutes a Hall of Famer.

I'm not objecting to having any kinds of standards at all. If there are not standards there is no basis for judgment. I'm objecting to pulling standards out of your ***. That "guy," Jay Jaffe, built standards by using WAR, which combines all qualifications and normalizes so you can compare era to era. Then he compares Career WAR with Peak WAR, and does the same for all pitchers in history. Then he finds an average for all Hall of Famers. Do you see why this is a more valid system that just being like "barely 200 wins? That's not a Hall of Famer" or whatever your argument was (I don't really know)?

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/10/2013 2:00:00 PM (view original):And yea, for what's it's worth, I don't think most of the guys on that list below Halladay are HOF material. In my head, Schilling is right on the borderline, and gets in because of what he did in the postseason. And he's above Halladay on JAWS.

So you're in favor of cutting out half of the Hall of Famers already in? Look, I'm trying to go after you in particular -- you're like most people, in that you make up Hall of Fame standards based on the guys in the Hall that you know about, not necessarily all the guys that are in. Like it or don't, the standard for the Hall of Fame is not Greg Maddux. He's well, well above the standard. The standard is Burleigh Grimes. That's not to say we want to elect everyone better than Jesse Haines or Rube Marquard -- those were the mistakes. But it's a little too late to go back now and include only the 30 best pitchers of all time. Halladay is clearly qualified based on what the Hall is, but perhaps not what you think it is.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/10/2013 7:31:00 AM (view original):I don't care much if a player leads the league in RBI. Mays did lead the league in OPS+ 6 times, and added a ton of value with his legs and defense. He also has the counting stats to be HOF-worthy than Halladay does not have.

If you want me to vote for a player for the HOF, and you don't have the counting numbers to do it, I want you to have a dominant peak, to be considered by many to be the best for multiple years. I don't think it's obvious Halladay was the best for more than a few years. Although, he did lead in ERA+ once, which is probably a better stat than ERA. So I'll give you that stat. But yea, be dominant if you have a shorter career. Be Pedro. Be Koufax.

"I want you to have a dominant peak, to be considered by many to be the best for multiple years. I don't think it's obvious Halladay was the best for more than a few years."

Over a nine season span (2003 - 2011), Halliday went 151-68 (average of 17-8), with three 20 win seasons, a 2.97 ERA, and a 147+ ERA plus. He also led or tied for the league lead in complete games in 7 of those 9 seasons, and finished in the top five of Cy Young Award voting 7 out of those 9 seasons (winning twice).

How does that not fit your "requirement"?

No. Be dominant, be better than everyone else, not "as good" as the best guys.

Be Koufax. Be Pedro. Or, pitch for longer.

He won two CYA's.

Is that not "better"?

Look at Halladay's 2003 and then look at Pedro's. Then tell me that giving the award to Halladay wasn't a mistake.

He was the best in the NL in 2010. But Hernandez was the best pitcher in baseball that year.

According to BL, aka jrd_x, "more is better".

Halladay pitched around 80 more innings than Pedro. Therefore . . .

But what about according to you?

Do you think Halladay should have gotten the Cy Young in 2003? Or should it have gone to Pedro?

Posted by bad_luck on 12/10/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):Halladay would be a below average hall of famer. That lowers the standard.

That's a ludicrous argument too. So now no one from the modern era can get in unless they're better than the average Hall of Famer? The the only people from our era will be inner-circle Hall of Famers. The the Hall of Fame becomes "Great players from all eras except the modern one, who can only be super-great players." That's a different standard.

I understand not wanting to elect anyone down among the bottom fourth of the current membership. I'm not advocating Dave Stieb or Bret Saberhagen. But Halladay, a guy who ranks with Marichal, Hubbell, and Feller, is certainly not destroying the Hall of Fame's standards.

IMO, by allowing Halladay in, you're lowering the standard. Since you don't feel like reading to understand my argument, I'll repeat it. If you don't have the typical HOF length career (he clearly doesn't) to put up the counting stats (wins, WAR, Ks, etc) then you better have a dominant peak. Relative to his peers, IMO, it's not dominant. Dominant is Pedro. Pedro should get in, despite not having a large amount of innings.

And for what it's worth, Jaffe is torn on Halladay. He also wants the standard raised.